Recently, the Karnataka High Court found itself examining a dispute that struck at the core of how Fair Price Shops are regulated in the State. What began as a routine administrative endorsement soon grew into a legal confrontation over whether such authorizations can move from one individual to another and when the law allows it.
The case arose from an endorsement issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department refusing the petitioner’s request for transfer of authorization to operate a Fair Price Shop. The petitioner had earlier submitted a representation seeking the transfer but received a rejection, prompting them to approach the High Court through a writ petition.
The Petitioner argued that the rejection was mechanical and arbitrary. The counsel contended that the authorities ought to have considered the representation fairly, keeping in view the Petitioner’s circumstances. The Petitioner sought quashing of the endorsement and a direction to reconsider the transfer request.
The State defended its position by relying on Rule 13 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Control Order, 1992, which prohibits transfer of authorization. Officials highlighted that the Rule contains only a narrow exception permitting transfer solely upon the death of the authorized dealer, and only to specific family members meeting strict age and educational criteria introduced through the amendment. Since the petitioner did not fall within this exception, the request was asserted to be legally unsustainable.
The High Court observed that Rule 13 clearly bars any authorized dealer from assigning or transferring authorization to another person. The proviso, including the amendment, reinforces that transfers are allowed only in case of the dealer’s death, and even then under stringent eligibility conditions and with prior government approval. This amounted to a clear statutory prohibition, leaving no vested right in favour of the petitioner.
The Court held that, in the absence of any legal right to seek transfer, a writ of mandamus could not be issued. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the endorsement was dismissed.
Case Title: Lakshmamma v.the State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 31337 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Lakshmikanth K
Counsel for the Respondent: AGA Sidarth Baburao
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
